Reply #13: If you are personally affected, which is the law in all other cases.

[happyslug]

Standing exists so that when a Court decides an issue, the parties are in opposition to each other, not some third party wanting to make a point. That is how the US Supreme Court ruled on issues of Standing, including ruling that it was unconstitutional for schools to start with prays, that it was unconstitutional to require people to be taught in English, to protect someone who wanted to read a banned book. Standing is to make sure a constitutional rule is made based on two sides agreeing to the rule before the court consider it and framing the argument so the Court will rule the way the sides want it to rule.

The big fear of permitting people without some harm in the litigation, is for the courts to make a rule of law that is someone wants, and the real opposition to that proposed rule does not even know of the litigation. Now, this is mostly involving other aspects of the Law and Constitution, but it is an essential element of the Common Law System. To permit people to litigate an issue, that the parties do not have a real interest in finding the correct rule, means the finding of law is not the product of two sides arguing before a Judge, and that Judge making a decision based on the argument, but to permit one side, in effect, to make the argument and get the Judge to rule on his side. The Common Law has never worked that way, and can NOT work that way.

Both the Opinion of the Court and the Dissent, went on and on about the need to reduce standing (i.e. permit tax payers to have standing just because they are tax payers) in cases involving Government support for religion, but it more arguments about how far the rule should go, then as to the actually need for the rule. How far do we want tax payers to have standing? That could permit standing in any Government action, including where a bridge should be built, a highway built, a new building be built, how much to pay for welfare, how much to pay for Social Security etc. Nothing would be safe from such litigation and thus how do you limit such litigation especially since much of it will be one sides (i.e. Someone challenges the Government grant of Welfare, when the Government wants to abolish welfare itself, thus you have a court case between two people who agree welfare is unconstitutional and so the court will rule. No actual dispute between the parties and by the time people who are on welfare (and have standing) are facing a rule of law they must attack and take all the way up to the US Supreme Court, hoping the Court will reverse the decision.

As to First Amendment violation, if you can show personal harm, i.e. you child is forced to recite a pray, your child must knee and make the sign of the cross before the cross in front of the school, your child must read take a religious class in school, you must pay a fee to a Church, you have to listen to a religious leader every day and other similar actions all provide personal harm and thus actionable under the Standing clause to protect your first amendment right. The court has always said the place to argue about taxes is the Legislature NOT the courts. Do you want people to claim a right under the Constitution not to pay a tax, for the tax is going to something their oppose (like rails to trails, or public transit)? Do you want people to object to a Government right to give a deduction for use of public transit, when they oppose such subsidies on freedom of religious grounds (i.e. They oppose such Government benefit for the plaintiff believes it is better for everyone to buy a car)? Do you want someone to oppose money for a public meeting place, for it is something that would replace Churches as public meeting places on the grounds that such public meeting place will put an undo harm on Churches?

Sorry, sometimes a iron clad rule is better then a fixable rule, in this case an iron clad rule would protect anyone who is directly harmed by a Government support for Religion, but shift any concern of religious freedom to the State Legislatures WHO HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF THE PURSE. In many ways, if we permit "taxpayers" to challenge any act of the Legislatures we are asking the Courts to be a Super Legislature i.e. is taxpayers lose a fight on the floor of the State Legislature (or Congress of local Government) why provide such taxpayers, not personally harmed, to get one more chance to determine tax policy (and remember tax policy is reserved to the Legislature in our understanding of the Separation of powers).

I am sorry, direct attack on how a legislature spends Tax dollars is something reserved to said legislature. If you do not like how it is being spent, run against the incumbents on that issue. otherwise leave the Legislature makes decision when no one has any personal interest in how the money is raised and spent, unless you can show a direct harm. In case of Direct harm the Standing argument does not come into play, if you can show direct harm (NOT harm as a taxpayer) you have standing.